consider how John began his epistle? He began it in this manner:
I John chapter 1 verses 1 thru 3
That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life;
(For the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and shew unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us);
That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us: and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ.
I assume that you and I both understand the beginning here to at least mean before Incarnation. Correct?
The Word of life = the eternal life. 'It' was with the Father.
Do you understand, like me, that 'with the Father,' here, was before Incarnation?
If so, the Father is before Incarnation. God is not just 'God' before Incarnation, God is Father in eternity without beginning.
John began his first epistle in precisely the same manner in which he began his gospel by referring to the pre-incarnate Christ as the Word of life or the Word:
John chapter 1 verses 1 thru 3
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
The same was in the beginning with God.
All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
In both instances, John refers to the Word Who was in the beginning and not to the Son Who was allegedly in the beginning.
Since according to 1 Jn 1:2 the Father was in the beginning, then of a necessity the Son was in the beginning. Because, by definition of 'father,' one is not a father without a son (offspring). Thus the Son is not only allegedly in the beginning: He is in the beginning.
This (of course) corresponds with John 1:1-4 and Hebrews 1:2, 8-10.
All things came into being through [the Word], and apart from Him not one thing came into being which has come into being.
The Son...through whom also [God] made the universe......Of the Son...You in the beginning, Lord, laid the foundations of the earth, and the heavens are the works of Your hands.
in other words, the Word is the Son and the Son is the Word, the Word was always the Son and the Son was always the Word. Both are the expression, the image, the form, the 'embodiment,' of God. Long before man and Incarnation.
In his first epistle it isn't until after he mentions how the life was manifested that he mentions Jesus as being God's Son and in his gospel it isn't until after he mentions that the Word was made flesh that he begins to refer to Jesus as the Son of God. In other words, John doesn't refer to Jesus as being God's Son until after His incarnation. What you're doing is putting the proverbial cart before the horse. Show me any place in scripture where John spoke of God the Son from eternity past. I doubt that you'll be able to do so.
1 John 1:3 shows that God the Father is from eternity past. The Father is not the Father without the Son. That's not 'before a proverbial horse,' that is God and that is eternity without beginning and without end.
You correctly credit a Triune God of God, Word, and Spirit. But God is not only so. God is Father, Son, and Spirit. More personal terms than merely functional. Reproduction is not something God invented. Reproduction (and Life) is something God is. Always was, always has been, and always will be. That is the sense of the phrases 'eternally begetting, eternally begotten.'
I John chapter 3 verse 8:
He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil.
When was the Son of God manifested or made known? From eternity past or at Christ's incarnation? Of course, John was speaking of the timeframe of Christ's incarnation and not from eternity past as you and others assert and he explained as much in the opening verses of both his gospel and his first epistle.
'Manifested' means revealed or unveiled. It does not mean born or begun. To suggest that the Son of God is not eternal, eternal in the full sense of that word, is heresy. Heresy in the sense of being not just false, but seriously false.
Your Galatians chapter 4 verse 4 citation is even more damaging to your own position. It reads:
But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,
Paul explicitly stated that God's Son was made of a woman and made under the law, but you and others would have us to believe that God's Son was somehow eternally begotten, a self-refuting lie, long before there was ever a woman upon the face of the earth and long before God's law was ever formally given at Mt. Sinai. Can't you see the folly of this position? I'm sorry, flob, but it's error and grievous error at that. In my estimation, this verse alone, and there are many more just like it, single-handedly destroys your position.
Don't be sorry, p.c! I love this verse and use it against your teaching in my posts before this one as well as now.
Before 4:4 says that God's Son was born of a woman, born under law [around AD 4], it says 'God sent forth His Son...'
In other words, God's sending forth His Son comes before His Son is born of a woman, under the law. In further words,
God's Son preexisted His birth into and through Mary when she was virgin.
Your teaching (which I invite you to drop and hope you do so) might translate:
When the fullness of time came, God became a Son [or had a Son], born of a woman, born under law.
But that's not what Paul wrote.
Likewise with Romans 8:3 and Hebrews 7:3;
and John's 1 John 3:8; 4:9-10, 14 and 5:20.
